1 / 45

Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Director, Policy Development and Offset Solutions

Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Director, Policy Development and Offset Solutions Climate Change Central Forestry/Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum April 7, 2009 Shepherdstown, West Virginia. Canadian Climate Change Policy. C3 Background

lance
Download Presentation

Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Director, Policy Development and Offset Solutions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Karen Haugen-Kozyra, M.Sc. P.Ag. Director, Policy Development and Offset Solutions Climate Change Central Forestry/Agriculture GHG Modeling Forum April 7, 2009 Shepherdstown, West Virginia Canadian Climate Change Policy

  2. C3 Background • Climate Change Central was formed in 2000,Triple P Partnership • Focus on reducing greenhouse gases • Policy, energy efficiency, technology development, environmental communications. • Goal is to empower Albertans to take action on climate change • Facilitated development of the Carbon Market in Alberta

  3. Outline • Canadian Climate Change Policy • Quantification Frameworks • Offsets and Protocol Development

  4. In a Nutshell… And it’s not getting any better… Expecting clarity sometime mid-summer

  5. We’re Not Doing so Hot….

  6. GHG Emissions in the Canadian Context(MT CO2e/ yr) 331 246 0.6 0.5 82 0.5 0.5 6.0 1.2 67 87 25 234 69 21 118 196 98 2006 3 21 25 13 2 21 25 2020 24

  7. 1996 – Climate Change Program (20% 1990 by 2005) 1997 – Kyoto signed (6%1990 by ’08-12) 12% above 1990 BAU emissions 1998 – 16 Experts/Issues Tables; NCCP 1999 – DOE/ENV – Baseline Protection 2000 – Climate Change Plan 2000 2001 - Domestic Emissions Trading WG 2002 - Kyoto Ratified Sector Agreement discussions with Large Final Emitters Trade Dept, CDM/JI Tours with Industry 2003 - $1B Climate Change Plan Principles for Domestic Emissions Trading Program Set 2004 – One Tonne Challenge Expecting Fall Regulations 2005–$10B to meet Kyoto Targets by ’08-’12; 22% above1990 BAU emissions Regulations/Offset System and supporting legislation drafted 2006 – Change in Government Policy uncertainty – at its Zenith 10 to 12 mos regroup 2007 - Clean Air Act (Bill C-30) omnibus bill attempted; No to Kyoto 2007 – GHG Regulatory Framework Minimal consultation 2008 – Turning the Corner Plan  20% 2006 levels by 2020  60-70% 2006 levels by 2050 The Ride Behind Us

  8. Expected Emission Reductions by 2020

  9. The NA Climate Policy Map* *Climate Perspectives Bulletin 2008 Fasken-Martineau/Perkins Cole

  10. Surplus Credits These are credits for better than target performance (if reduce below the target) Fund Credits Invest in the Technology Fund at $15/tonne – funds used to develop or invest in technologies, programs, and other priority areas Carbon Offsets Emission Reductions from unregulated companies sold into the System Options to Achieve Targets

  11. RISK Conservation Tillage Groups “Carbon Consortium” Firms seeking credits AlPac Federal and Provincial Plans Offset System Consult Fed-Prov Protocol Process AB Rules In Place Kyoto Signed Entergy Lease Prairie C Balance Research AgCert Contracting Farmers in Alberta GEMCo Trade –Iowa Farmers Federal Offset Pilot 2.5Mt Cndn Offsets to CCX Sinks Brokered at Marrakech Accord Liability Concerns Sinks “Removal Offsets” Manure Mgmt “Reduction Offsets” PRICE Offsets Just as Bumpy… “OFFSETS” Federal Rules in Place? ‘94 ‘09 ‘99 ‘07 ‘08 ‘97 ‘01 ‘03 ‘05 Standardized Protocols available Reduced Transaction Costs Free-For-All – highly speculative High transaction costs

  12. AB Offset Rules – Regulatory Definition/Supporting Infrastructure • Emission Offsets: • Action (project) taken on/after January 1, 2002 • All actions must occur in Alberta • Must be real, quantifiable and measurable • Not otherwise required by law; clearly owned • Must be verified by 3rd party • Guidance Documents (Projects, Verification, Protocols) • Protocols – Most comprehensive set in NA • 25 Approved • 9 more in protocol review process • 6 more signalled their intent • Project-based Registry launched = Alberta Offset Emission Registry (AEOR) Connect to www.carbonoffsetsolutions.ca

  13. AB Market Performance • 2007 - 25% of liabilities -settled with offsets. • Tillage System protocol favoured • 7 Projects: 3 Tillage, 2 Wind, 1 LFG, 1 Biomass • $6 to $12 / tonne • 30-40% transaction costs by aggregators • To Date - 5 Million tonnes of Offsets created 13 tillage Projects (approx 1.3 Mt of No Till Offsets) • Good for Capacity Building Note – Demand approx 10 to 12 Mt per year

  14. Progress on Offsets Quantification in Agriculture and Forestry Began in the West in 2002…

  15. National Offset Quantification Team • Western Canadian Offset Team - 2002 • NOQT – 2003-2006; Fed-Prov-Territorial Committee • Mandate -Identify, and prioritise GHG Quantification Protocols to support Offset System • Work as of 2006: Afforestation; Biogas, Land fill Gas, Ag Soil Sequestration, Biogas, Beef, Pork, Energy Efficiency, Intermodal • CFS started on FCM…

  16. Offset Policy Criteria • Additional/Incremental – beyond business as usual (establish valid and defensible baseline post Program Start Date); surplus to regulations/received incentives) • Real, Measurable, Quantifiable – agreement on best available science and activity data – develop a Protocol. Must stand up to Transparent Review Processes; account for all 6 GHGs. • Verifiable – carbon accounting, and tracking process must be clear, defensible, and have good QA/QC procedures; verified by qualified third party • Permanent – must protect against carbon reversals; account and replace mechanisms • Clearly Owned – Can be a barrier • Not Double Counted – Registered and serialized once;

  17. Risk of Inaction too great… • Two Major International Enablers: • Country-Level Accounting Standards - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change • Guidance on Tier I, II and III approaches • Project-Level Quantification Frameworks • WRI GHG Protocol/ISO 14064-2 • Promotes consistency and transparency in GHG quantification, monitoring, reporting and verification We must bridge the Science-Policy Divide, by taking action with what we confidently know today, in a risk-based assessment framework

  18. Risk of Inaction: Science Backdrop • World has collaborated on Guidance for GHG Quantification • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1994, 2001, 2006) • Pioneering Standards for GHG Quantification for Country level accounting • A Framework for understanding best available science: • regularly compiling it and identifying consistent, agreed-to ways of calculating baseline year emissions; • which sources/sinks count, • emission factors to be used, • standard formulae; • and QA/QC procedures.

  19. Accounting Rigor CDM GHG Protocol CCX Ease of Use Policy Neutral, Flexible ISO 14064-2 Carbon Offset (Project-based) Accounting Standards AB/CDN VCS Standardizing means making policy decisions! CCAR

  20. C Accounting • Project Quantification – alignment with National Inventory methods preferred • Inventory accounting (emission factors etc) linked to project accounting • Project activity level (msmts of cattle, diets, feed intake, etc) linked to inventory emission factors • “First Generation Protocols” – with goal of continuous improvement every 5-8 years • Basis to drive further refinements

  21. Fundamentals of Offsets:“Baseline-Project = Offsets” • Project Condition • What happens (GHGs) in the improved practice/new technology? • Baseline Condition • What was happening (GHG emissions) in the old practice, before the change? • Are they comparable (same level of activity, product, service) (aka Functional Equivalence)? • Evidence – Document it: • Quantification Plan • Monitoring Plan • Data Management System and Data Controls Defines the Size of the Benefit – or number of carbon offsets per eligible project

  22. Baseline Approaches: • Historic – site specific usually; assumes past trends continue • Performance Standard – assumes a typical emissions profile for the industry or sector or region and is a reasonable representation of the baseline. • Comparison-Based – control group compared with Project – must establish both. • Projection-based – either forecast emissions with models or straight-line growth assumptions. • Pre-registered – already approved baselines in other Protocols, where applicable.

  23. ISO 14064-2 Principles • Relevance - select GHG sources and sinks, emission factors and formulae appropriate to the environmental integrity of the protocol. • Completeness – should consider all relevant GHG emissions and removals. Relevant information used to support decisions made in the quantification process should be transparently documented. • Consistency - to ensure meaningful comparison of GHG-related information. In particular, like emissions need to be compared in baseline and project scenarios – ‘Functional equivalence”. • Accuracy - reduce bias and uncertainties as far as practical; rely on IPCC and National Inventory methods as much as possible. • Conservativeness - conservative assumptions, values and procedures are used to ensure that GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements are not over-estimated. • Transparency - present your calculations, assumptions and decisions in a clear, upfront manner that facilitates review by reviewers, interested parties, verifiers - ultimately the Regulator wqill need this to accept the protocols.

  24. ISO Principles • Completeness Principle: • Knowledge and Scientific Judgment • Substitute for direct evidence where lacking • Models and conversion factors • Estimate uncertainty • Conservativeness Principle • Applied as a risk-based approach where science is less robust, but directionally there • Strive to underestimate baseline emissions • Use the 80:20 rule; collective decisions through expert peer review (IPCC style) • “Serves as a moderator to accuracy”

  25. Protocol Development Requires….. Part 2 of ISO14064 (ie, auditable standard general process requirements) ApplicableGHG Program (eg, additional requirements, criteria, rules and policies) Good PracticeGuidance (eg, recognized criteria, methodologies, tools and guidance on how to do it) Considered Technical Review Within the context of the ISO Standard Stakeholder Consultation (eg, communication with interested parties) National Emissions Inventory Tier 11 Quantification Science Relevant Standards (eg, recognized criteria, rules, methodologies, equipment) RelevantLegislation (eg, regulatory requirements) Markets for GHG Units Quantification Protocols: identifying preferred methodologies to quantify GHG reductions/removals

  26. Standards-Based Protocols Offset System Rules Project Plans  Protocol Development ISO 14064-2 • Defines the Requirements • Tells proponent what to do not how to do it • Generic, nonsectoral • Some requirements given • Some procedures • Sectoral • Performance-based standard’ approach: -simplified and prescriptive to achieve a certain level of performance • Project Type • Many criteria and procedures established and justified – the how to’s • Project specific • Must show they meet the requirements • Establish some criteria and procedures

  27. Alberta Protocols In Review Approved Approved Afforestation Beef (3) Biofuels Biogas Biomass Energy Efficiency Pork Tillage Systems Waste Heat Landfill Gas Renewables (3) Enhanced Oil Recovery Acid Gas Injection Intermodal Switching Road Rehab Land Fill Bioreactors Compost Energy Efficiency FlyAsh Engine Fuel Mgmt/ Vent Gas Capture Wastewater Trmt Sludge Application (2) Fugitive Emissions Energy Efficiency Compressor Stn Retrofits Buildings (3) N20 Abatement (2) Reduced Summerfallow Residual Feed Intake Beef

  28. Protocol Development/Validation Process Check Carbon Offset Solutions website for draft protocols, protocols under development 1 2-10 mo Develop & compile Technical Seed Document(s) (TSD) for protocol foundation 2 Protocol Developer Prepare Technical Protocol Plan (TPP) 3 Submit TPP & TSDs to Alberta Government for review 4 Provide feedback to protocol developers – 60 days* 5 Alberta Government Adapt into Alberta protocol format (Standardization) 6 Protocol Developer 4-6 mo 1st round of reviews – expert technical review No sustained objections, then move forward. 7 2nd round of reviews – broader stakeholder review No sustained objection, then move forward 8 Coordination by Climate Change Central (C3) “All parties involved” 3rd round of reviews – posting for public review 30 days 9 10-30 days Finalization of protocol & review of public comments by Alberta Environment** 10 1-2 mo 11 Government approval & posting of protocol Alberta Government

  29. Development Process • Phase 1 – Planning and compilation of Technical Seed Documents (4 to 8 mos) • Phase 2 – Development of a Science Discussion Paper (3 to 4 mos) • Phase 3 – Science Coordination Workshops (1 to 2 mos) for peer-review and consensus building (>80%) • Phase 4 – Standardize intoAlberta Template (1.5 mos) Then proceed to the Alberta Protocol Review Process (2 to 6 mos)

  30. Alberta Ag Protocols Being Developed or Considered Nitrous Oxide Reduction -CFI, AFI Wetlands Management - DU Conversion to Perennial Forages Residue Management Rangeland Pasture Management Soil Amendment

  31. Tillage System Management Protocol

  32. Alberta’s Approach - Controversial

  33. Canadian Method of Soil Carbon Quantification Modelling Measurement

  34. Hybrid Baseline – Performance Std with Projection-Based Coefficients based on model output, developed and validated with research data (eg. Century for soil carbon) Tillage activity definitions All that’s needed is to monitor the activity Minimize administration costs - treat large groups of farmers the same - cheaper to monitor/verify activity than direct GHG impacts

  35. Concept – Dry Prairie CO2e ↑ 1990 2000 Time 

  36. Dry Prairie Region CO2e  Adjusted Baseline -only New C going forward is eligible NT RT Amount of Carbon sequestered through adoption of practice until 2002 1990 2000 2001 2000 2003 Time  Meeting Additionality

  37. Permanence • Must ensure carbon stays in the ground • Federal context: – Reversal coefficients • Permanent Offset Credit (20 to 25 year liability period) – producer liable • Temporary Credit (expires after 1 year) – buyer liable

  38. Permanence - Alberta • Government underwrites the reversals • Assurance Factor • Based on expert opinion • Risk Assessments - frequency of reversal of tillage practices in Dry Prairie and Parkland • Reversal risk – shaves off C for every tonne created – into Reserve-Holdback enabled by government policy • Backs the liability of a reversal of Soil C • Farmers must disclose reversal of practice - no credits earned for that year (no liability on farmer/project developer) Takes a Time-discount problem and solves it with a volume-discount reflecting historical reversal frequency

  39. Assurance Factor – 10% on average - A reserve enabled through government policy CO2e  RT NT 1990 1999 2000 2001 2002 Time  Alberta – Assurance Factor

  40. Protocol Co-Benefits • Energy efficiency • Labour saving • Increased biodiversity • Water conservation • Drives further adoption and maintenance of the sink • System awareness & understanding • Industry development • Increased public recognition to agriculture “Recognize, Respect and Reward”

  41. Going Forward • C3 Review in March 2008 for Environment Canada: • Over 420 Protocols/Standards/Methodlogies • 10 Landfill Gas Protocols (???) • Different groups are positioning: • Voluntary Carbon Standard • Duke University (Nicholas school of environment) is informing CCAR/CAR to prepare the development of an Ag protocol. • The Earth Partners (in collaboration with EKO) soil carbon quantification methodology • Novecta/Iowa-Illinois Corn Growers - Terravista • California Cattlemen's Beef Association • Society of American Foresters/AFPA • Rangeland management: Holistic Management International and others • CA Climate Action Registry (CCAR) • Need a Coordinating Mechanism -similar to Canada • Consistent Frameworks

  42. Going Forward (2) • Last Friday in San Diego: North American Ad Hoc Working Group on Protocols • WCI, CCAR, OQI, CERP, COPC, C3, Pew, IPOG (Canada) • Propose to begin a Process for Moving Forward… • Engage USDA; USEPA

  43. Mitigation Potentials by Sector Developing Countries OECD Countries World total Economies in Transition GtCO2-eq/yr 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Energy supply Transport Buildings Industry Agriculture Forestry Waste 0 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 <20 <50 <100 Relative contribution of Agriculture + Forestry to total mitigation potential* US$ 20/tCO2 – 21% US$ 50/tCO2 – 32% US$ 100/tCO2 – 45% *D. Martino, 2008; Note, in Canada, Agriculture can contribute more than 20% of Canada’s target at $50 per tonne

  44. A Mitigation Potential Largely Missed by Kyoto* Developed Countries: net sink of 1.2 Gt CO2in 2004 *Slide courtesy of D. Martino,

  45. 7 Gt/yr +2.0 Gt C/yr +1.4 Gt C/yr 10,000 Gt C -6.8 Gt C/yr Global Carbon CycleTipping Point (Gt carbon) Atmosphere 760 +2.8 Gt C/yr (ca.10 Gt CO2/yr) 600 40,000 1600 Soils Oceans Soils

More Related